Berkley


It seems like only yesterdayShowgirlswas released in theaters, but it was actually 20 years ago yesterday that this legendary NC-17 flick hit theaters! Now the film's director,Paul Verhoeven, is looking back on the cult phenomenon in the new issue of Rolling Stone and we've got some of the best bits from the interview!

Verhoeven and screenwriter Joe Eszterhas, who were just coming off the enormous success of Basic Instinct, spent a ton of time researching Showgirls before the script was written. While the research proved invaluable, Verhoeven regrets the tone of the film and wishes it had hewed closer to their previous triumph...

GershonI have said this in several interviews, but in retrospect I think it would have much better to have done something similar to Basic Instinct, more or less: a murder mystery in Vegas. And it would have been easier for audiences to go to a movie where there was abundant nudity which was probably too difficult, in general, for the American public. In Basic Instinct, there are very, very long sex scenes, which aren't there in Showgirls. Because it was a thriller, the idea that Sharon Stone could kill him during sex was always an element of protection. So we could show sex and nudity much longer than normal, because there was another element there the element of threat.

But the sexual elements of Showgirls are extremely limited; it's more about the nudity. If you make a story about a lap-dancer who becomes a showgirl, I think nudity is obligatory. It followed the storyline. But I wouldn't call that sexual. I would say Showgirls is more anti-erotic than erotic.

It was also the fights Verhoeven weathered onBasic Instinctthat led him to decide upon the NC-17 rating for Showgirls before filming even began...

McCarthyWith Basic Instinct, I had endless fights for months with the MPAA about what I could and couldn't show in the film. Which is why the American version is different than the European version, which is much more explicit. We had to go back to the MPAA eight times with that movie before we could get an R rating, which is what my contract required.

So I foresaw exactly the same problems or worse with doing Showgirls. So I told Joe and the others, "If you don't do this as an NC-17, I'm not going to do it." Because I didn't want to fight with the MPAA about one breast here, or another breast there, and another breast over there. So from the beginning, I was very clear that I only wanted to make the movie with that rating.

Most importantly for Verhoeven, however, is the fact that he made the film when he did because he thinks the film could never be made in the current climate...

RiffelI don't think that it's a movie that could ever be made anymore. Ever. Because nudity is more taboo than ever in the United States. You see these movies and the sex scenes are reduced to a couple of dissolves where you see a hand on a back, but there are really no sex scenes in American movies anymore. There are exceptions, of course. But not many.

Yet 20 years later we're still talking about the movie. You never see anything like it anymore, something so outrageous but very well filmed: the lighting, the sound effects, everything. There's a lot of nudity; but it's not exploitative. It's not a porno movie. I think the nudity in Showgirls is not done in what you would call a "dirty" way. For me, the female body is extremely inspiring and beautiful. When I was in high school in Holland, my art teacher said: The breast of a woman is the most beautiful thing in the world. I never forgot that, and I've always felt that way.

Be sure to head over to Rolling Stone to read the full interview